The Identity of Alexander and the Macedonians in Civilization VI

[meteo63]

Hello, Civ Fans!

I am a student and scholar of Classics (the study of ancient Greek and Roman civilization), as well as a longtime fan of the Civilization series. I've recently published an article on the Classics blog Eidolon about the identity of Alexander and the Macedonians, as portrayed in the new DLC pack for Civilization VI. In the article, I also discuss various issues in the game series regarding historical representation, cultural homogenization, and Eurocentrism. I would very much appreciate it if you would check it out and let me know what you think.

The question of whether Alexander and the Macedonians are Greeks has been contentious for a long time. The ancient Greeks themselves could not agree on this issue, and today, neither do scholars. The modern Greeks and Macedonians are engaged in a political debate over this as well. Now Firaxis seems to be getting involved by making Alexander a Macedonian, rather than a Greek, leader, as if suggesting that he is not really a Greek. My take is that they were not trying to make a point about Macedon but looking for a way to bring back Alexander as a cool historical character.

I thought it would be interesting to discuss the complexities of this cultural debate in relation to the Civ series. Thanks so much, and I hope you enjoy the article.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Very interesting and thoughtful article.

 

[Agent327]

Given that Firaxis already released Pericles of Athens and Gorgo of Sparta, it seems only natural that Alexander would be of Macedon. I'm not sure why anybody would want to read more into it than that. (Unless that person would like to argue that Gorgo and Pericles were not Greek.)

 

[Liufeng]

A wonderful read, truly. It won't really appease my pain of having Macedon in the game instead of many other more deserving civs, but still, I really felt learning something with your paper !

 

[Hrothbern]

Hello, Civ Fans!

I am a student and scholar of Classics (the study of ancient Greek and Roman civilization), as well as a longtime fan of the Civilization series. I've recently published an article on the Classics blog Eidolon about the identity of Alexander and the Macedonians, as portrayed in the new DLC pack for Civilization VI. In the article, I also discuss various issues in the game series regarding historical representation, cultural homogenization, and Eurocentrism. I would very much appreciate it if you would check it out and let me know what you think.

The question of whether Alexander and the Macedonians are Greeks has been contentious for a long time. The ancient Greeks themselves could not agree on this issue, and today, neither do scholars. The modern Greeks and Macedonians are engaged in a political debate over this as well. Now Firaxis seems to be getting involved by making Alexander a Macedonian, rather than a Greek, leader, as if suggesting that he is not really a Greek. My take is that they were not trying to make a point about Macedon but looking for a way to bring back Alexander as a cool historical character.

I thought it would be interesting to discuss the complexities of this cultural debate in relation to the Civ series. Thanks so much, and I hope you enjoy the article.

The Greek were really awesome in the classic debate and for sure they had many different opinions to fuel that
Herodotus, father of the classic history, was of the opinion they were a "philhellene" meaning a friend of the Greek, but no kinsmen.

Some quotes of the ancient past:
"The ancient Macedonians regarded the Greeks as potentially dangerous neighbors, never as kinsmen. The Greeks stereotyped the Macedonians as "barbarians" and treated them in the same bigoted manner in which they treated all non-Greeks. Herodotus, the Father of History, relates how the Macedonian king Alexander I(498-454 BC), a Philhellene (that is "a friend of the Greeks" and logically a non-Greek), wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, saying they would not run with a barbarian. Historian Thucydidis also calls the Macedonians barbarians, and so did Thracymachus who called Archelaus a barbarian who enslaved Greeks. Demosthenes, the great Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of Philip II as:

"... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave." [Third Philippic, 31]"

 

[Rosty K]

"... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave." [Third Philippic, 31]"

Them ancients sure knew a thing or two about insults

 

[Hrothbern]

Them ancients sure knew a thing or two about insults

smile

My feeling is that Herodotus was the more impartial opinion with calling the Macedonians friends.
And the others were more a kind of hotheads.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Given that Firaxis already released Pericles of Athens and Gorgo of Sparta, it seems only natural that Alexander would be of Macedon. I'm not sure why anybody would want to read more into it than that. (Unless that person would like to argue that Gorgo and Pericles were not Greek.)

Except Because Firaxis, released Pericles (Athens) of the Greeks and Gorgo (Sparta) of the Greeks, so they could have naturally released Alexander (Macedon) of the Greeks instead of Alexander of the Macedonians (no relation to the Greeks).

Firaxis did not release Pericles of the Athenian civilization or Gorgo of the Spartan civilization.

 

[Hrothbern]

Except Because Firaxis, released Pericles (Athens) of the Greeks and Gorgo (Sparta) of the Greeks, so they could have naturally released Alexander (Macedon) of the Greeks instead of Alexander of the Macedonians (no relation to the Greeks).

Firaxis did not release Pericles of the Athenian civilization or Gorgo of the Spartan civilization.

Your logic is sound as argument versus the quote you are referring to !!!

However,
Factual is that the DNA of Macedonians matches well to the DNA of Serbians and Bulgarians and NOT with the DNA of Greek.

This fits to the classic history as I learned at school, telling that the Greek settled from the coast land inward and the Macedonians as another tribe started north of their later capital Pella.

However often the Greek city states warred upon eachother, and however difficult they were to unite in the hours of common peril, they originated from the same DNA-tribe.

 

[Halcyan2]

I consider Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians Greek, and I side with modern Greece on the FYROM issue.

Initially, I was annoyed that Civ VI introduced a new civilization, but I got over it. First off, they went with "Macedon" (rather than "Macedonia"). Secondly, it's just an extra helping of Greece, even with another name.

The best analogy is the East Roman Empire (Byzantium). As a devout Byzantinist, I support the truth of how the ERE was the continuation (not a mere "successor") of the Roman Empire. Am I annoyed that Civ has Rome and Byzantium as separate civilizations? Nope! I think of it has simply having more options, especially since the ERE did have a very distinct culture that evolved over time (after its amicable political split and messy religious schism from the West).

Another example would be the presence of the Frankish Empire (the so-called Holy Roman Empire, in a poor attempt to usurp the legacy of the true Roman Empire). That existed even with Germany around in prior Civs.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

However,
Factual is that the DNA of Macedonians matches well to the DNA of Serbians and Bulgarians and NOT with the DNA of Greek.

Of modern Macedonians sure, but that's to be expected after the Slav colonization of the Balkans.

I'd be more interested in testing DNA of Macedonian and Greek skeletons from about the time of Alexander if we're going to look into their relation via DNA. Which is not to say the opinions of historic sources should be disregarded, 'blood' relation or not.

 

[Hrothbern]

Of modern Macedonians sure, but that's to be expected after the Slav colonization of the Balkans.

I'd be more interested in testing DNA of Macedonian and Greek skeletons from about the time of Alexander if we're going to look into their relation via DNA. Which is not to say the opinions of historic sources should be disregarded, 'blood' relation or not.

DNA will rewrite lots of the history as we know it !
And yes, you are right, we also need DNA from old skeletons.

Many decades to go, before all those tribal movements and interminglings will be unwrapped to a satisfying scientific level.
Archelogists, the professional university based, work slowly but thorough.

But from what is already done, you can say that history has been written by the winners and DNA will tell us what really happened with the masses.

 

[magha77]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece and envy your line of work. Bravo.

 

[Agent327]

Except Because Firaxis, released Pericles (Athens) of the Greeks and Gorgo (Sparta) of the Greeks, so they could have naturally released Alexander (Macedon) of the Greeks instead of Alexander of the Macedonians (no relation to the Greeks).

Firaxis did not release Pericles of the Athenian civilization or Gorgo of the Spartan civilization.

I consider Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians Greek, and I side with modern Greece on the FYROM issue.

This would be examples of reading too much into something. Regardless of whether anyone today considers Alexander Greek, he was of the Macedonian ruling house. But here's the historically interesting part (which the article should expand on): before Alexander Macedonians were considered semi-barbarians. Alexander, however, was instrumental in the spread of Hellenism. And ever since Alexander (and Macedonia) has been considered part of Greece. Which is certainly correct culturally.

Now you may side with anyone you like in the debate, but that doesn't alter historical fact.

 

[vagr0m]

..my opinion on meteo63's article: Its a well-written article that represents adequately the academic middleground-ness and fairplay over hot-potato political-historic debates... at this point i want to mention that this ''middlegroundness'' sometimes is a political view in itself instead of the pure reason it tries to be... western academia nowadays has little to do with the philhellenism of the 19th century and this is a fact with two sides... West's view of greeks -although naive at a first sight- had a geostrategical imperative even then...and secondly every national identity is based on a national myth.. truth is that some national myths are based more on historical reality than others.. its one thing to say that macedonians at the age of Demosthenes were a different kind of political-social organization compared to the city-state paradigm of classical age and another that of modern-day slavs exhorted to abandon their own history by imposing themselves in a fantasy universe that combines cultures and peoples emerged at a timeframe of about 1500 years wide ... as for the famous orator.. he had a very good reason to deconstruct the "greekness" of his political enemies but it was the sociopolitical factor... that of a democracy against a kingdom (an institution abandoned from the heroic age for the rest of greeks) that made it sound plausible at the ears of his fellow citizens... this kind of deconstruction of identity isnt used for the first time by him.. at the age of first persian wars it was the "μηδιζειν="living a luxury way of life like the Medes" a usual accusation of otherness to the austere greek worldview/self-identity... in ancient greek societies there is no kinsfolk... its the way of social life that constitutes the unity of common identity... thats somehow the advent of citizenship that surpasses tribalism.. a notion that prevails at the core of institutions of modernity.. But now we live in the age of Trump.. it is very possible that the borders of historical narratives behind the geostratecic alliances may change... for example its the first time that an elected president of a western democracy congatulates openly a dictator for his fraud victory..

 

[civviefan]

Fascinating discussion, thank you to all involved. I concur with the view that all national identities strive for a form of purity that is ideal and historically reconstructed in the interests of rhetoric. I think DNA evidence is a poor indicator of identity construction, negotiation and contestation. A black person born and raised in modern Greece who feels Greek and is welcomed by the local community cannot be denied their Greekness on the grounds of biological reductionism. That is even more the case for a nation famous for forging identity around shared values rather than biomarkers.